From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7A01389E2 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:46:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC6CBE08DF; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA89E0863 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l15so780623wiw.4 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:46:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mu315hI7a0OlvNDZoJtWRyMuiwQdOR9gFEgE74go43s=; b=bePEgcYoRrKyM99dGtZOhIIXkAFOzxHw4Qc5MNwH8HyenY2TslPe4L3GcYkfXKyWhR JnowzCO4+rEQ+Yup8eE3drCNo9AQuJpcZXuhInClkC5ywciBZW/OHtUkf2V4GGvZtRnk KDVQO/BARHdMvNvypTVCgJEryZTEUf2B9UNKA69Oj3tPXA48wDj6j4Xfo9R41E1ptrHq CUlvOPr1Ya58SidoTtnMx6lq/M3Y0ertcxHAY9c/nHTZZRZ5AwoqKJsGGFfhJcONZD/f j3wBmHElSTVLdZj8Muo8xhVTNXVH/f/w7nKacqRBLv1OQwyRUG3kTN5t78NjfO2vhCOl MBFQ== X-Received: by 10.180.95.74 with SMTP id di10mr30144487wib.54.1416908774117; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.0.41] (105-237-217-13.access.mtnbusiness.co.za. [105.237.217.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kn5sm1087189wjb.48.2014.11.25.01.46.12 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:46:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54744FCE.8090800@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:45:50 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] The future of linux, and Gentoo specifically now References: <546EE70C.2050506@yourstruly.sx> <20141121173600.GA1029@ca.inter.net> <547370D2.50009@marc-stuermer.de> <54737886.a3a7700a.6f81.4209@mx.google.com> <20141124210516.53a54a90@digimed.co.uk> <54742d25.a576c20a.4d91.2ae4@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <54742d25.a576c20a.4d91.2ae4@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 58872b2f-114c-46f4-8cd2-fee60499c80d X-Archives-Hash: 26b7b9bbae2052d997205c1fe737915a On 25/11/2014 09:15, Gevisz wrote: >> I even can agree with them that a new place of that button was >> > logical, ergonomic and saved screen space. > Only now, I have realized that, logically, it was possible > to rearrange all the elements of Unity in such a way that > it was logical, ergonomic, saved space, and moreover kept > the window frame close button at its usual place, but > it was not possible with the Unity configuration anyway. > This is incorrect. Unity has always been able to reposition the window control buttons, right from the first release. Perhaps you just didn't know how or where to change it. Doesn't mean it was not possible to change it. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com